We’ve all heard it before. The classic argument from a theist’s perspective on why a god must have created our universe. I can’t tell you how many times religious people have said to me: “well, can you think of one example where something comes from nothing in the universe?”

Hubble Deep Field: thousands of galaxies in one tiny view of space

They are correct in noting that “something cannot be created from nothing” within our known universe, as far as we have been able to demonstrate through scientific inquiry. However, when considering the big bang and the origins of our known universe, we cannot apply the laws of physics WITHIN the known universe to that which act OUTSIDE the known universe. Before the start of our universe, it is plausible that other laws of “physics” governed and dictated how our universe singularity began and where the energy and material originated from.

Additionally, when a theist states that “something cannot come from nothing” and then states that a god created the known universe, he still hasn’t solved his own question. Is god “something”? Why, yes, god is something. Then where did he come from? Theists usually state that god is eternal, and always existed and was never created. This statement violates the first assumption they make that “something cannot come from nothing”. God is a “something” and they are supposing he came from “nothing”. All this supposing gets us nowhere, which is why we turn to evidence and the scientific method of inquiry to find answers. When we do not know the answer, we continue searching, testing and finding evidence for what is actually real, while admitting that we do not know the answer until we have evidence.

There is a notable phenomenon observed in quantum mechanics. Particles composed of quarks such as protons, neutrons, positrons, etc have been observed popping into existence from nowhere and leaving again just as fast. Such particles “appear” in a vacuum where no other matter or energy exists. At the quantum level, even empty space is not truly empty but is seething with activity; particles are constantly popping in and out of existence everywhere. In pair creation, a particle and its antimatter partner seem to “appear” (see Bosons). This is cutting edge quantum mechanics research. The Large Hadron Collider in Switzlerand was built and is just recently up and running in the search for the Higgs-Boson particle.

We cannot apply the laws of this universe to that which acted outside of the universe. The laws that hold true within the bubble of our universe may not govern outside the bounds of this universe. It is plausible that there are endless numbers of other universes “floating” about and our universe is just one of them. Within each of these multi-verses different laws and properties may govern the interactions within. This “Multiverse theory” is the leading theory in the scientific cosmology community, though it remains untested and still a speculation. (Though this speculation is based on other observations and evidence of how our universe operates). It is probable that the “laws” that act outside our bubble universe commonly call into existence something from nothing. It is also possible that our universe is eternal, in the sense that it cycles through stages. We cannot say with certainty so it is irresponsible to jump to a conclusion without the ability to test or prove it to be false or true. This applies to the multi-verse theory and the theory of a god or gods.

Something from Nothing: A conversation between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins:

62 Comments

You clearly didn’t read the Stanford University “Zombie Article” – there is absolutely no science that can prove we are conscious to each other. There is talking and Philosophy however and we are safe to assume we are all conscious
Again you’re confused about how science actually works.

Science is actually one of our weakest tools. Tell a dying child in the 4th stage cancer ward that science is coming, or get Yo Yo Ma to play Sonatas for her final days. There is no rational reason to choose the latter, but the child would. One child chose to see Robin Williams in her final days. The materialist version of reality you suggest would say that was silly and not the necessary for there is no soul to soothe.